If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

8 years of Bush. Nobody said **** about the level of discourse. This is political. It's demonizing Fox News, talk radio, and Sarah Palin. That's the goal. Read the Daily Kos. The level of discourse on that site is the bottom of the barrel, they even "targeted" congressman Giffords for voting against Pelosi, yet blaming the level of right wing rhetoric is one of their chief talking points. It's one of the chief talking points on MSNBC for the past few days. Given the personalities on that network espousing those views, I am skeptical about their sincerity on the subject of rational discourse.

However. Even if the goal is pure, and people want to see a nicer political tone, why make that point on the back of this event when there is no evidence of any connection whatsoever between the two?

However. Even if the goal is pure, and people want to see a nicer political tone, why make that point on the back of this event when there is no evidence of any connection whatsoever between the two?

1. The goal is pure. No one is saying that there should not be talk radio, nor that Fox should be closed. It is in fact about the volume and lack of civil conduct. It is not about what people are saying as much as how they are saying it. In old times, conservatives would have conversations with liberals without conservatives being called fascists or Nazi's and liberals being called Communists or socialists. They could disagree without being disagreeable. It worked

2.If one really wants the tone turned down, if not now, when? What needs to happen to get the name calling turned off and the conversation turned on?

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

1. The goal is pure. No one is saying that there should not be talk radio, nor that Fox should be closed. It is in fact about the volume and lack of civil conduct. It is not about what people are saying as much as how they are saying it. In old times, conservatives would have conversations with liberals without conservatives being called fascists or Nazi's and liberals being called Communists or socialists. They could disagree without being disagreeable. It worked

Nobody on this forum is saying it. But it is being said.

As far as your overall point. I am very skeptical that this time where politics wasn't emotionally charged ever existed.

Originally Posted by cabernetluver

2.If one really wants the tone turned down, if not now, when? What needs to happen to get the name calling turned off and the conversation turned on?

Any time. It can be said any time. But using this story to advance that idea seems to be misguided.

I am going to attempt an analogy here, so be forewarned. If fire codes in a building weren't up to par, and people kept debating whether the fire codes needed to be updated, that is fine. But then one day a missile hits the building. And the people who wanted stricter fire codes say "See! We need stricter fire codes!" It's a fine point, it just has no relation to the ****ing missile that just hit the building.

eta: And watching the start of Maddow, she appears ready to bring up gun control. Which I think is misguided, but at least more relevant than the political rhetoric.

As far as your overall point. I am very skeptical that this time where politics wasn't emotionally charged ever existed.

Any time. It can be said any time. But using this story to advance that idea seems to be misguided.

I am going to attempt an analogy here, so be forewarned. If fire codes in a building weren't up to par, and people kept debating whether the fire codes needed to be updated, that is fine. But then one day a missile hits the building. And the people who wanted stricter fire codes say "See! We need stricter fire codes!" It's a fine point, it just has no relation to the ****ing missile that just hit the building.

eta: And watching the start of Maddow, she appears ready to bring up gun control. Which I think is misguided, but at least more relevant than the political rhetoric.

Never said no emotions, just less volume. There used to be a lineup on a local station that started with a liberal, followed by a conservative, followed by a libertarian. None of them were name callers, all of them presented their point of view, I learned and changed from all of them. That kind of discourse has existed, but does not exist now.

To your analogy, I will not strain it, but just bring this point to it. If the missile caused people people to accept the idea of improved fire codes, even if they had no connection, then it is a good time to get them. (I want to point out I did not strain the analogy to try to make a point, I went with it.)

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

I am going to attempt an analogy here, so be forewarned. If fire codes in a building weren't up to par, and people kept debating whether the fire codes needed to be updated, that is fine. But then one day a missile hits the building. And the people who wanted stricter fire codes say "See! We need stricter fire codes!" It's a fine point, it just has no relation to the ****ing missile that just hit the building.

Nah.

It's a little more like constantly telling your friend to leave his front door open at night. And then one night, some guy with a crowbar and a lockpick goes driving down the street looking for a house to burglarize and chooses your friend's house because he left the door open. Sure, the burglar could have gotten in even if your friend had locked the door. Sure, the guy who committed the criminal act, and not you, is at fault. But don't you think you should stop telling your friend to leave his front door open at night?

Never said no emotions, just less volume. There used to be a lineup on a local station that started with a liberal, followed by a conservative, followed by a libertarian. None of them were name callers, all of them presented their point of view, I learned and changed from all of them. That kind of discourse has existed, but does not exist now.

To your analogy, I will not strain it, but just bring this point to it. If the missile caused people people to accept the idea of improved fire codes, even if they had no connection, then it is a good time to get them. (I want to point out I did not strain the analogy to try to make a point, I went with it.)

Eh. I don't have any problem with the volume. But if I did I'd ask what the alternative is. What's the plan for lowering it? Hope?

Originally Posted by philab

It's a little more like constantly telling your friend to leave his front door open at night. And then one night, some guy with a crowbar and a lockpick goes driving down the street looking for a house to burglarize and chooses your friend's house because he left the door open. Sure, the burglar could have gotten in even if your friend had locked the door. Sure, the guy who committed the criminal act, and not you, is at fault. But don't you think you should stop telling your friend to leave his front door open at night?

Not at all. Because the ease of access would have a direct impact on what house a burglar decides to rob. And directly telling someone to leave their door open is much different than putting targets on a map, or using gun metaphors.

The evidence now seems to indicate that this guy was on his own wavelength, which makes it unlikely that he may have even been aware of the political rhetoric. And also, his contact with Giffords predates Palin even being in the national spotlight, so his obsession/determination to kill Giffords could have originated prior to any of the rhetoric people complain about taking place.

Not at all. Because the ease of access would have a direct impact on what house a burglar decides to rob.

Yep. Analogy is still good.

And directly telling someone to leave their door open is much different than putting targets on a map, or using gun metaphors.

But you didn't tell the burglar what to do. If anything, you're less culpable because of the lack of ANY advocacy directed toward the burglar (as opposed to Palin's implied advocacy that was misconstrued by the shooter).

The evidence now seems to indicate that this guy was on his own wavelength, which makes it unlikely that he may have even been aware of the political rhetoric. And also, his contact with Giffords predates Palin even being in the national spotlight, so his obsession/determination to kill Giffords could have originated prior to any of the rhetoric people complain about taking place.

He was quite aware of the political rhetoric. Please.

Yes, he is ****ing crazy. And yes, that's all that matters. But the point remains: shouldn't Palin stop telling her friends to leave their front doors open at night?

Eh. I don't have any problem with the volume. But if I did I'd ask what the alternative is. What's the plan for lowering it? Hope?

The evidence now seems to indicate that this guy was on his own wavelength, which makes it unlikely that he may have even been aware of the political rhetoric. And also, his contact with Giffords predates Palin even being in the national spotlight, so his obsession/determination to kill Giffords could have originated prior to any of the rhetoric people complain about taking place.

First, what is the plan, causing social pressure to cause the name calling screamers to lower it. Pretty simple. It can work. Seems like that kind of plan is right up your alley because it would be a free market plan. If people stop listening and watching because they find it distasteful, that would work.

Second, I have never intended to imply a specific causal relationship from Palin alone as opposed to saying that the rhetoric makes violence more acceptable. Once again my problem with Palin as it deals with this discussion is just that of an example. A loud annoying example, but just an example none the less.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

I saw Palin on the news saying that it's ridiculous that any violence towards Giffords was related to her map and that her crosshairs weren't gunsights but just "crosshairs like you see on a map". Has Palin ever seen a map before?

I saw Palin on the news saying that it's ridiculous that any violence towards Giffords was related to her map and that her crosshairs weren't gunsights but just "crosshairs like you see on a map". Has Palin ever seen a map before?

And what are they through the scope of her rifle? Moose that shouldn't be re-elected?

First, what is the plan, causing social pressure to cause the name calling screamers to lower it. Pretty simple. It can work. Seems like that kind of plan is right up your alley because it would be a free market plan. If people stop listening and watching because they find it distasteful, that would work.

Second, I have never intended to imply a specific causal relationship from Palin alone as opposed to saying that the rhetoric makes violence more acceptable. Once again my problem with Palin as it deals with this discussion is just that of an example. A loud annoying example, but just an example none the less.

The free market plays into my point though. The reason it is there in the first place is because people like it. It sells. Any idea that people are going to stop tuning into this sort of thing is probably shot down by how fast this very shooting plays right into the entire framework. People seem to be hoping that this makes people think twice about the level of rhetoric. Which may be true amongst some. But still others are advancing the idea that Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party inspired murder and they must be stopped! So, I doubt this will become any sort of turning point. It's just another example of the same kind of thing.

So, I don't think that people are going to simply stop watching. Which leads me to think that when people talk about "stopping" it, they are talking about passing some sort of law, or making some sort of speech illegal.

And what are they through the scope of her rifle? Moose that shouldn't be re-elected?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if "Momma bear" referred to Democrats as "Moose" in her "reload", "take aim" and "fight" rhetoric. Those are the highly sophistocated political terms that she seems to love so much.

That's becuase the level of discourse, while not polite, wasn't nearly this bad. There weren't stories of whether or not Bush is the anti-Christ on CNN, no one claimed he was a Kenyan national, that he was Muslim, that he was an anarchist, etc. And no one was going out and shooting members congress or enriching nuclear material in their basement in an attempt to assassinate him.

But you didn't tell the burglar what to do. If anything, you're less culpable because of the lack of ANY advocacy directed toward the burglar (as opposed to Palin's implied advocacy that was misconstrued by the shooter).

He was quite aware of the political rhetoric. Please.

Yes, he is ****ing crazy. And yes, that's all that matters. But the point remains: shouldn't Palin stop telling her friends to leave their front doors open at night?

No. You didn't tell the burglar anything. You just made his job easier. And helped inspire your friend to make his house more susceptible to being robbed.

How is this a good analogy?

"He was quite aware of the political rhetoric"....there is no evidence to say he was aware. And his writings seem to imply that even if he were aware, he wouldn't care about them. This guy was on his own wavelength.

Originally Posted by North Country

That's becuase the level of discourse, while not polite, wasn't nearly this bad. There weren't stories of whether or not Bush is the anti-Christ on CNN, no one claimed he was a Kenyan national, that he was Muslim, that he was an anarchist, etc. And no one was going out and shooting members congress or enriching nuclear material in their basement in an attempt to assassinate him.

They claimed he was a Nazi war criminal who was shredding the Constitution.